以关系方式开展工作就是一切:毒品决策网络中对权力和价值的认识。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Research Policy and Systems Pub Date : 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1186/s12961-024-01225-4
Naomi Zakimi, Martin Bouchard, Alison Ritter, Alissa Greer
{"title":"以关系方式开展工作就是一切:毒品决策网络中对权力和价值的认识。","authors":"Naomi Zakimi, Martin Bouchard, Alison Ritter, Alissa Greer","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01225-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The development of drug policies has been a major focus for policy-makers across North America in light of the ongoing public health emergency caused by the overdose crisis. In this context, the current study examined stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of power and value in a drug policy-making process in a North American city using qualitative, questionnaire, and social network data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We interviewed 18 people who participated in the development of a drug policy proposal between October 2021 and March 2022. They represented different groups and organizations, including government (n = 3), people who use drugs-led advocacy organizations (n = 5), other drug policy advocacy organizations (n = 5), research (n = 3) and police (n = 2). Most of them identified as men (n = 8) and white (n = 16), and their ages ranged between 30 and 80 years old (median = 50). Social network analysis questionnaires and semi-structured qualitative interviews were administered via Zoom. Social network data were analysed using igraph in R, and qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. The analyses explored perceptions of value and power within a drug policy-making network.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The policy-making network showed that connections could be found across participants from different groups, with government officials being the most central. Qualitative data showed that inclusion in the network and centrality did not necessarily translate into feeling powerful or valued. Many participants were dissatisfied with the process despite having structurally advantageous positions or self-reporting moderately high quantitative value scores. Participants who viewed themselves as more valued acknowledged many process shortcomings, but they also saw it as more balanced or fair than those who felt undervalued.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While participation can make stakeholders and communities feel valued and empowered, our findings highlight that inclusion, position and diversity of connections in a drug policy-making network do not, in and of itself, guarantee these outcomes. Instead, policy-makers must provide transparent terms of reference guidelines and include highly skilled facilitators in policy discussions. This is particularly important in policy processes that involve historical power imbalances in the context of a pressing public health emergency.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"139"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11448052/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Working in a relational way is everything: Perceptions of power and value in a drug policy-making network.\",\"authors\":\"Naomi Zakimi, Martin Bouchard, Alison Ritter, Alissa Greer\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-024-01225-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The development of drug policies has been a major focus for policy-makers across North America in light of the ongoing public health emergency caused by the overdose crisis. In this context, the current study examined stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of power and value in a drug policy-making process in a North American city using qualitative, questionnaire, and social network data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We interviewed 18 people who participated in the development of a drug policy proposal between October 2021 and March 2022. They represented different groups and organizations, including government (n = 3), people who use drugs-led advocacy organizations (n = 5), other drug policy advocacy organizations (n = 5), research (n = 3) and police (n = 2). Most of them identified as men (n = 8) and white (n = 16), and their ages ranged between 30 and 80 years old (median = 50). Social network analysis questionnaires and semi-structured qualitative interviews were administered via Zoom. Social network data were analysed using igraph in R, and qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. The analyses explored perceptions of value and power within a drug policy-making network.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The policy-making network showed that connections could be found across participants from different groups, with government officials being the most central. Qualitative data showed that inclusion in the network and centrality did not necessarily translate into feeling powerful or valued. Many participants were dissatisfied with the process despite having structurally advantageous positions or self-reporting moderately high quantitative value scores. Participants who viewed themselves as more valued acknowledged many process shortcomings, but they also saw it as more balanced or fair than those who felt undervalued.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While participation can make stakeholders and communities feel valued and empowered, our findings highlight that inclusion, position and diversity of connections in a drug policy-making network do not, in and of itself, guarantee these outcomes. Instead, policy-makers must provide transparent terms of reference guidelines and include highly skilled facilitators in policy discussions. This is particularly important in policy processes that involve historical power imbalances in the context of a pressing public health emergency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"139\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11448052/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01225-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01225-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:鉴于用药过量危机造成的公共卫生紧急状况,毒品政策的制定一直是北美决策者关注的焦点。在此背景下,本研究利用定性、问卷调查和社交网络数据,考察了利益相关者在北美某城市毒品政策制定过程中的经验以及对权力和价值的看法:我们采访了 18 位在 2021 年 10 月至 2022 年 3 月期间参与毒品政策提案制定的人员。他们代表不同的团体和组织,包括政府(3 人)、以吸毒者为主导的倡导组织(5 人)、其他毒品政策倡导组织(5 人)、研究机构(3 人)和警方(2 人)。他们大多为男性(n = 8)和白人(n = 16),年龄在 30 至 80 岁之间(中位数 = 50)。社交网络分析问卷和半结构化定性访谈通过 Zoom 进行。社交网络数据使用 R 中的 igraph 进行分析,定性数据则使用主题分析法进行分析。这些分析探讨了毒品政策制定网络中的价值感和权力感:决策网络显示,来自不同群体的参与者之间都能建立联系,其中以政府官员最为重要。定性数据显示,融入网络和中心地位并不一定意味着感到自己有权力或有价值。许多参与者尽管在结构上处于有利地位,或自我报告的量化价值得分中等偏高,但他们对这一过程并不满意。认为自己更有价值的参与者承认过程中存在许多不足,但他们也认为过程比那些认为自己价值被低估的参与者更加平衡或公平:虽然参与能让利益相关者和社区感到被重视和被授权,但我们的研究结果强调,毒品政策制定网络中的包容性、地位和联系多样性本身并不能保证这些结果。相反,政策制定者必须提供透明的职权范围指南,并在政策讨论中加入高技能的协调人。在紧迫的公共卫生紧急情况下,这对于涉及历史权力不平衡的政策进程尤为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Working in a relational way is everything: Perceptions of power and value in a drug policy-making network.

Background: The development of drug policies has been a major focus for policy-makers across North America in light of the ongoing public health emergency caused by the overdose crisis. In this context, the current study examined stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of power and value in a drug policy-making process in a North American city using qualitative, questionnaire, and social network data.

Methods: We interviewed 18 people who participated in the development of a drug policy proposal between October 2021 and March 2022. They represented different groups and organizations, including government (n = 3), people who use drugs-led advocacy organizations (n = 5), other drug policy advocacy organizations (n = 5), research (n = 3) and police (n = 2). Most of them identified as men (n = 8) and white (n = 16), and their ages ranged between 30 and 80 years old (median = 50). Social network analysis questionnaires and semi-structured qualitative interviews were administered via Zoom. Social network data were analysed using igraph in R, and qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. The analyses explored perceptions of value and power within a drug policy-making network.

Results: The policy-making network showed that connections could be found across participants from different groups, with government officials being the most central. Qualitative data showed that inclusion in the network and centrality did not necessarily translate into feeling powerful or valued. Many participants were dissatisfied with the process despite having structurally advantageous positions or self-reporting moderately high quantitative value scores. Participants who viewed themselves as more valued acknowledged many process shortcomings, but they also saw it as more balanced or fair than those who felt undervalued.

Conclusions: While participation can make stakeholders and communities feel valued and empowered, our findings highlight that inclusion, position and diversity of connections in a drug policy-making network do not, in and of itself, guarantee these outcomes. Instead, policy-makers must provide transparent terms of reference guidelines and include highly skilled facilitators in policy discussions. This is particularly important in policy processes that involve historical power imbalances in the context of a pressing public health emergency.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
期刊最新文献
Leveraging international stakeholders' experiences with oral PrEP costs to accelerate implementation of the monthly dapivirine vaginal ring: A qualitative study. The embedded research model: an answer to the research and evaluation needs of community service organizations? Implementation of national policies and interventions (WHO Best Buys) for non-communicable disease prevention and control in Ghana: a mixed methods analysis. Policy impact of the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team: global perspective and United Kingdom case study. Real-world data to improve organ and tissue donation policies: lessons learned from the tissue and organ donor epidemiology study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1